UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption • Hacker News Board

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#191

Post by ctack » Tue, Jul 26, 2016, 6:37 AM UTC

vehementi wrote: post #137

Blahah wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate you're playing devil's advocate, so I'm holding back. "There's a security problem in Europe at the moment". What are you talking about? The number of people harmed in terrorism-related events in Europe in any given year is dwarfed by the number of people who harm themselves by accident or stupidity in those same countries. And dwarfed to an even greater extent by the number of people killed by police in…

> It is the media attention given to the situation, not the situation itself, that is terrifying. In a very real sense, the media is causing the demoralization / fear in the US / West. Given we will spend trillions(?) of dollars fighting the terrorism that we ostensibly believe is causing that demoralization (due to its real harm on the country), why aren't we spending any trillions against the media? Not to censor t…

You just need to spend it on education.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#192

Post by ptaipale » Tue, Jul 26, 2016, 6:45 AM UTC

blowski wrote: post #115

Blahah wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate you're playing devil's advocate, so I'm holding back. "There's a security problem in Europe at the moment". What are you talking about? The number of people harmed in terrorism-related events in Europe in any given year is dwarfed by the number of people who harm themselves by accident or stupidity in those same countries. And dwarfed to an even greater extent by the number of people killed by police in…

The reason I push on this argument is that by making it, we as a community sound like we're waving away the concerns of the majority. "Oh a lorry killed loads of children? Don't worry about it love, loads more people commit suicide every year." So those who do pander to those concerns end up winning the vote, and then they can trash our civil liberties. This is precisely how we British have ended up voting to leave t…

> we're not going to do that by saying "my privacy is more important than reducing terrorism".

You are absolutely right. That is the wrong dichotomy to make.

The message should be "you cannot reduce terrorism by taking my privacy; you maybe can reduce terrorism by acting on the terrorists".

A lot of this has to do with the fact that people in general are very tired of a situation where criminals and illegal immigrants cannot be deported. For instance, in my country, an asylum seeker was convicted of violence and firearms offences but couldn't be deported nor detained; eventually he went on to a shooting rampage to murder his former girlfriend and kill four of her colleagues shooting around at a mall, using a pistol he obtained illegally from the Balkans.

Action by politicians? Make it more difficult to get a legal permit for a firearm.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#193

Post by joering2 » Tue, Jul 26, 2016, 7:25 AM UTC

TillE wrote: post #146

Blahah wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate you're playing devil's advocate, so I'm holding back. "There's a security problem in Europe at the moment". What are you talking about? The number of people harmed in terrorism-related events in Europe in any given year is dwarfed by the number of people who harm themselves by accident or stupidity in those same countries. And dwarfed to an even greater extent by the number of people killed by police in…

The recent attacks in Germany are a particularly relevant example. Aside from the fact that zero people have thus far been killed by Islamist terrorists in Germany (since...I'm not sure when), every single incident was perpetrated by one person acting entirely on his own. And the thing in Reutlingen which keeps getting lumped in was a "normal" murder. No amount of domestic "anti-terrorism" law enforcement would have…

It's even worst than that.

How about media abuse of the word "terrorism". I can imagine any decent professor at any decent university of politics to choke a little when he hears about "another terror attack".

While the definition is not agreed upon globally, in order for it to be a terrorism, the attacker needs to be sending or demanding a political message to be heard or implemented by a country he or she used violence against.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

But they are pushing envelope for a well known reasons. The government has different set of rules and tools to fight "terrorism" than for example, a domestic abuse case. If things will continue the way they do, pretty soon your drunk neighbor that hit his wife will be called a "terrorist".

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#194

Post by waqf » Tue, Jul 26, 2016, 7:27 AM UTC

blowski wrote: post #182

Retra wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're never going to find a solution to a hard problem by appealing to the whims of the masses.

Finding a solution which appeals only to Hacker News readers isn't a solution if you live in a democracy.

One of you is answering the question "What should the country collectively [i.e. the government and people, negotiating and communicating with each other through elections and media] do about the destruction caused by terrorism?".

One of you is answering the question "What should the government do about popular fears of terrorism, which might cause the government to lose elections?".

You're in violent agreement that the easy answer to question 1 doesn't solve question 2, and the easy answer to question 2 doesn't solve question 1. Why not moot some other answers to those questions, instead of sitting on your high respective horses?

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#195

Post by Blahah » Tue, Jul 26, 2016, 7:31 AM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #154

Blahah wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate you're playing devil's advocate, so I'm holding back. "There's a security problem in Europe at the moment". What are you talking about? The number of people harmed in terrorism-related events in Europe in any given year is dwarfed by the number of people who harm themselves by accident or stupidity in those same countries. And dwarfed to an even greater extent by the number of people killed by police in…

> I appreciate you're playing devil's advocate, so I'm holding back. And if his views were genuine, would you then be rude? I find this implication troubling and corrosive to open discussion. > It is the media attention given to the situation, not the situation itself, that is terrifying. Europe is extremely safe and does not have a security problem. I couldn't disagree more. If such incidents were rare two decades a…

> And if his views were genuine, would you then be rude? I find this implication troubling and corrosive to open discussion.

No, I would have been more extensive and detailed in my answer. Instead I went for a few short points in rhetorical language.

The other reply to your comment has addressed the other points.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#196

Post by Blahah » Tue, Jul 26, 2016, 7:34 AM UTC

olympusmons wrote: post #167

Blahah wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate you're playing devil's advocate, so I'm holding back. "There's a security problem in Europe at the moment". What are you talking about? The number of people harmed in terrorism-related events in Europe in any given year is dwarfed by the number of people who harm themselves by accident or stupidity in those same countries. And dwarfed to an even greater extent by the number of people killed by police in…

The first line of your response very concisely illustrates my growing unease with discussions related to privacy on hacker news. The fact that you're having to "hold back" is sadly indicative of why debates on sensitive topics like this are turning into echo chambers. I suspect that many who hold the minority view keep quiet to avoid being yelled at. I don't intend to take sides here. I've only ever come here to read…

Some excellent points, and I'm happy to be challenged on my behaviour.

I didn't mean I was holding back from something sinister, but from making detailed and thorough arguments. Because I was only highlighting some issues with the Devil's advocate position, I used short points with rhetorical flourishes.

I agree none of this was conducive to a well-reasoned and objective debate. Often I don't consider I'm writing for an audience that comes here to learn - perhaps in future I should.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#197

Post by yodsanklai » Tue, Jul 26, 2016, 7:38 AM UTC

blowski wrote: post #135

maker1138 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution to the problem is not preventing people from communicating securely.

So what is the solution? If we spend all our time arguing what the solution isn't, we leave a big vacuum which is then filled with even more garbage ideas.

Why do you think that there is a solution? IMHO it's a mistake to think that there are solutions to everything. Sometimes, not doing anything is the best we can do.

I know it sounds cliché to say that, but I'd rather see my gvt taking actions on things that could easily be improved. For instance, many teenagers smoke in front of every high school in my country. I see that as a much bigger threat than terrorism, and one that is much easier to address.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#198

Post by ptaipale » Tue, Jul 26, 2016, 7:40 AM UTC

gakada wrote: post #148

reitanqild wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There has been a significant increase in the frequency and effectiveness of terrorist attacks in Europe. People are growing more worried about it. This is important to understand. Also it is important to understand that right now Europeans are losing security for no good reason: We could help a lot more refugees in surrounding countries than we can integrate here. It is really that simple IMO. Seens we are allowing…

In what way are EU states 'allowing this stream of immigrants'? The refugees are entering through illegal crossings. By definition, their entry is not allowed, but happens regardless.

De facto the entry is allowed, and even assisted.

A simple way to change this would be to discourage the pattern where people smugglers send a rubber boat to the Mediterranean and instruct the people in it to puncture it on sight of an EU rescue vessel because then they have to be transported to Europe. Change this so that the people are rescued and returned to the port of departure. You don't have to kill anyone, or hurt anyone, just disincentivize the people smugglers who are currently making a lot of money (and likely are contributors to political decision-makers who's come up with the current rules of engagement).

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#199

Post by ptaipale » Tue, Jul 26, 2016, 7:43 AM UTC

biafra wrote: post #183

reitanqild wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU could have enforced the existing rules much stricter though or even implemented stricter rules.

Just kill everybody who tries to enter or let even more of them die trying? We are rich. And we are partly responsible for the situation. Not helping refugees is just inhumane and wrong. Fixing this problem at the source would be better. So that people do not have to leave their home countries. But how?

We are not really helping refugees with the current rules of engagement. Only a minuscule percentage of actual refugees ever make to Europe, but our capability and will to help the actual refugees is severely undermined by the great migration.

At the moment, we are creating incentives for more migrants to travel, and more of the source countries and communities to send their most active members to get a foothold in the perceived lands of opportunity - when in reality, there are no jobs for them here. We are not helping refugees, we are making a great disservice to the communities where the migrants come from.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#200

Post by ptaipale » Tue, Jul 26, 2016, 7:56 AM UTC

kiba wrote: post #145

reitanqild wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There has been a significant increase in the frequency and effectiveness of terrorist attacks in Europe. People are growing more worried about it. This is important to understand. Also it is important to understand that right now Europeans are losing security for no good reason: We could help a lot more refugees in surrounding countries than we can integrate here. It is really that simple IMO. Seens we are allowing…

We are getting a flow of immigrants because the civil war in Syria did not stop, and instead rage on and on destroying the infrastructure and economy there that is needed to sustain the civilian population there. We are squeamish because we do not want to send young men and women to die in some godforsaken country, doing god know what for god knows how long. Remember the last time that happened? Oh yes, the Iraqi occ…

It's a misconception to think that the current wave of migration is just because of Syria. Or because of war in Iraq.

The people who come on boats to Europe are mostly not Syrians. They are from the vast lands stretching from Senegal to Morocco to Congo to Egypt to Syria to Iraq to Pakistan to India to Bangladesh, and they are not travelling to Europe because one particular place is very bad; they are travelling right now because they realize that it's about the last time to get a foothold Europe before the gates close, i.e. the current asylum process changes.

(I've met dozens and dozens of underage asylum seeker boys when arranging football trainings for them; they started to hang around in the neighbourhood and I realized it's better if they have something to do, so set up some games every week. Only a couple of them were from Syria. Many more were from Afghanistan and Iraq, but the list of source countries is very long. Mostly these boys are from middle-class families in countries that have some war but mostly just a very corrupt government, and the families have selected those who are able-bodied and have better language skills to seek for a future for themselves and possibly for the whole family, through the well-advertised family reunification programs.

The poor don't get to travel; the cost paid to people smugglers is somewhere in $5000-10000 range but the cost has been decreasing as the people-smuggling business commoditizes.)